Template talk:Multiple issues/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Big & ugly

The coding is too long and complex for me to make any headway here, so would it be possible for someone who's better at this than me to slim this thing down a little? Perhaps some whitespace could be removed, some text size reduced, line-height, etc? I appreciate the intention here, but posting even one issue with this template produces a box the size of two normal maintenance tags. There's just so much empty space. Thanks if anyone can give this some attention. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:43, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I moved the footer text to the top, into the same line as the heading. This saves a great deal of empty space. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:58, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Think I made some good headway. Here's how it was before:

[removed]

Equazcion •✗/C • 19:09, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

Well, I prefer the first version. It is easier to be read. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how, since aside from repositioning some text, the only real change that would have anything to do with readability is text size -- which was increased, not decreased. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:01, 12 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I can't explain it exactly. :) But the first box motivates me to read all the lines and in the second my eyes skip the first line because it's long and has 3 bold key-words. I won't revert your edits unless more people agree with me. I am just stating my opinion. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

No it makes perfect sense -- it'd be great if every notice could be placed in a box as large as possible, that'll make them attract more attention, but we have to keep in mind the cost vs. benefit of space to noticeability. The old version wasted a lot of space (and was an eyesore, not only in my opinion). Equazcion •✗/C • 00:23, 13 Mar 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the old version as well. Anthony Rupert (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I really think the old version was much too big, and I've seen other people complain about this as well, at articles where it's posted. I placed an RfC in this section to get more input. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:12, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

PS I don't see why there should be any dispute here. No other tag contains a tiny footer that extends the box and creates extra unused space. There's no reason this one should be any different. I understand that the box has gone unchanged for so long that people are simply used to it the old way, but try to think about the actual merits. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:30, 16 Mar 2008 (UTC)

What about something like this? [removed] I think it addresses both issues. --Waldir ^talk 09:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that Equazcion had already made the change he proposed. I am surprised that noone reverted, since from this discussion it seemed there wasn't much support to his proposal... --Waldir ^talk 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I remember that the editor went and made the change. For some reason I forgot to revert. I agree with your version + add a link to the talk page. I suggest you go and change it back. Since the article has mutpliple issues it's implied that it should be edited! No reason for big letters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but before editing the template I'll wait for more people to comment here. That way instead of two moves (revert, then change) we can make only one. --Waldir ^talk 13:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got no objection. It's all the same to me, honestly.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Thusly"

The "criticisms" parameter needs to be edited to get rid of "thusly." It reads:

It contains "Criticism" or "Controversy" section(s), thusly violating the Manual of Style.

See Wiktionary for thusly. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 02:20, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it. The whole wording was not in accordance with the original template. -- Magioladitis (talk) 02:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)